Jupiter 12 vs. Zeiss Biogon 35/2.8

blazejs

blazejs

Established
Local time
11:14 PM
Joined
Sep 21, 2008
Messages
142
Hello

I've just seen some more detailed photos of original Biogon lens and got confused with one thing. Generally Jupiter 12 doesn't look externally as exact copy of Biogon. I have noticed Biogon has 8 aperture blades while Jupiter just 5 blades (at least in mine). I wonder how does it influence on pictures from both lenses. I guess optical formula is the same, but are there any visible differences in pictures quality or bokeh?

Greetings
Blazej
 
More aperture blades will result in a better bokeh ( rounder oof shapes ). I admit, i have not used the Jupiter, but it takes more than copy an optical formula to make a good lens. The 35/2 and 35/2.8 biogons are among the sharpest 35mm lenses ever made, with high contrast , very little flare and great bokeh. The Jupiters, from what I have seen, are more low contrast high flare and not terribly sharp lenses which excel in softer, old school type of renderning. Here are a couple of 35/2 Biogon examples:
2189745407_c01ce7557a_b.jpg


1944993365_148fe9c20c_b.jpg
 
mfogiel said:
More aperture blades will result in a better bokeh ( rounder oof shapes ). I admit, i have not used the Jupiter, but it takes more than copy an optical formula to make a good lens. The 35/2 and 35/2.8 biogons are among the sharpest 35mm lenses ever made, with high contrast , very little flare and great bokeh. The Jupiters, from what I have seen, are more low contrast high flare and not terribly sharp lenses which excel in softer, old school type of renderning. Here are a couple of 35/2 Biogon examples:
Click to expand...
More aperture blades may well improve the OOF character but a wider lens needs fewer of them in the first place. Eight or five probably doesn't make a massive difference (not having a biogon I can't prove it either way though). Perhaps you ought to try the J-12, my two samples are quite the opposite of what you describe - sharp, contrasty and not prone to flare!

P.S. NIce shots there!
 
blazejs said:
Hello

I've just seen some more detailed photos of original Biogon lens and got confused with one thing. Generally Jupiter 12 doesn't look externally as exact copy of Biogon. I have noticed Biogon has 8 aperture blades while Jupiter just 5 blades (at least in mine). I wonder how does it influence on pictures from both lenses. I guess optical formula is the same, but are there any visible differences in pictures quality or bokeh?

Greetings
Blazej
Click to expand...
External appearance doesn't count for much. If it did, most modern SLR lenses would be "copies" of each other! Interesting that most people think the FED 10 and Industar 22 and 50 are Elmar copies (they aren't) because they are almost the same externally.
 
Last edited:
Great shots mfogiel! I really love your photography.

Biogons in Contax mount are rare and expensive nowadays so I have to stay with my Jupiter. But I must admit I really like it. From short distance and wide open its bokeh is very nice.

wolves3012: right, I have thought for long time that Industars are copies of Elmar but I have realized the true some years ago:) I just wonder if faster Industars are copy of anything or plain FSU constructions.
 
blazejs said:
Great shots mfogiel! I really love your photography.



...that Industars are copies of Elmar but I have realized the true some years ago:) I just wonder if faster Industars are copy of anything or plain FSU constructions.
Click to expand...


Industar are Soviet Tessars. In many respects, the Elmar is also a derivative of the Tessar. The 3,5/50 is significantly different because the aperture is placed after the front component; in the Tessar configuration, it's between the middle and back components. The 9cm Elmar though follows the Tessar arrangement.

Like the Tessar (and Elmar), the original maximum 3,5 aperture in the Industar eventually became 2,8.

I had 4 Jupiter-12 from various eras, now down to three. They, like Wolves's J-12s, are quite snappy, sharp, and not necessarily flare-prone. Except when shooting directly into the sun, which BTW happens even to the best of lenses.
 
The J12 is a really average lens with horrible handling (IMO of course). Now I haven't used a modern biogon but I think it would be safe to say that both the f2 and f2.8 would be 10 times better.
 
the Jupiter-12 is the copy of old Biogon, not Cosina's C. Biogon
and a Jupiter-12 with "real" red "n" on it performs really great

00%20%2816%29.JPG


00%20%2821%29.JPG


m.JPG


00%20%2818%29.JPG


8.JPG
 
Very nice pictures! From what year is your Jupiter 12? Mine (LTM) is from the last years of production period but I'm looking for much older in Kiev mount for my Kiev.
 
blazejs said:
Very nice pictures! From what year is your Jupiter 12? Mine (LTM) is from the last years of production period but I'm looking for much older in Kiev mount for my Kiev.
Click to expand...


well i can't tell exactly which year's model it is, must be around 1950s, but i believe it's a real red "n" lens
and mine is L39 mount.
As someone in this thread said, "The J12 is a really average lens with horrible handling (IMO of course)", and i won't agree that it's an average lens, but its handling is really horrible
 
Last edited:
Once you get use to the handling, the J-12 is not too bad to use. setting the aperture is a pain, but once that is set focusing is not problem. I have had two J-12s, both were quite sharp, just dont point them directly into bright sunlite, which you shouldnt with any lens. the 35mm finder for the J-12 is great, very bright and sharp. I bought my last one recently for 100.00 off the evilbay. for lens, caps. and VF, as a package. and its been a great lens.
BTW great photos, and really sharp, just the oppisite of what some people say about the J-12. Mine are for the Kiev, The LTM ones supposedly will only fit on FSU cameras, but I have heard otherwise on this forum that there are some LTM J-12s that will fit on other cameras - Michael
 
Last edited:
kievman said:
Once you get use to the handling, the J-12 is not too bad to use. setting the aperture is a pain, but once that is set focusing is not problem. I have had two J-12s, both were quite sharp, just dont point them directly into bright sunlite, which you shouldnt with any lens. the 35mm finder for the J-12 is great, very bright and sharp. I bought my last one recently for 100.00 off the evilbay. for lens, caps. and VF, as a package. and its been a great lens.
BTW great photos, and really sharp, just the oppisite of what some people say about the J-12. Mine are for the Kiev, The LTM ones supposedly will only fit on FSU cameras, but I have heard otherwise on this forum that there are some LTM J-12s that will fit on other cameras - Michael
Click to expand...


the LTM J-12 just can't be used on Bessa R and R2/3/4, also Leica M5, CL
for other Leica and FSU cameras, it's OK
 
Khadgar, that is one nice J-12! I used to have one, but it did not perform near as well as yours, so I sold it and bought a biogon.
 
The LTM ones supposedly will only fit on FSU cameras, but I have heard otherwise on this forum that there are some LTM J-12s that will fit on other cameras - Michael
Click to expand...

My J-12 fits and focus nicely in my Leica IIIb. I understand that the J-12 will not fit in modern Bessas because of the meter sensor, or so they tell me.
 
So, is the consensus to get an old style chrome J-12 with a red mark? Is the KMZ the best producer of this lens? How would you describe a "perfect" J-12 to buy? I saw today one J-12 offered for $250 for being "old".
 
Yes, Bob. The seller claims that it is a very early version. He also is selling J-12 lenses at $60.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom